It’s too late for the treaty with the EU until 2029 and probably for the next 12 years with our fishing waters. Who knows what else Starmer is capable of? We urgently need the opposition to submit a bill on opposition day with some high-level virtue signaling and fear mongering preventing the surrender of waters and territories in any future treaties with non-EU countries. What’s to stop him signing a deal where he allows non-EU countries access to our waters and free movement? Canada was stupid enough to sign similar deals and I wouldn’t put anything past Starmer. What’s to stop the EU from signing similar deals with non-EU countries, dragging the UK into them and granting the same? Don’t think things can get any worse, They can! The media needs to have a spotlight on this and be promoting fear everywhere to reign him in.
It needs to be a simple bill with simple wording like in the old days. For example;
Access to fishing waters cannot be granted in any future treaties
The youth mobility movement visa scheme will only apply to any EU treaties that are in force.
Free movement of people will be not be granted in any future treaties.
Sovereign territories will not be surrendered in any future treaties.
The best-case scenario is Labour MPs feeling pressured to pass the legislation because of the scrutiny. The more likely case will be a no vote, but the media will be all over it and all over every future treaty.
People are wanting to be patient and wait until 2029, but what else could Starmer do in that time? Reform is making loud noises, but will not do anything real to try to block Starmer because you never interrupt your enemy when they’re making a mistake. He needs to be interrupted! Thankfully, the Conservative party no longer has this luxury and has no choice but to be an opposition. Tory MPs need to be targeted the most to at least try to block Starmer, but all MPs need to be seen by PAC members. We could be heading for a future where our Parliament is nothing more than a scrutiny body like the EU Parliament and it will not matter who the government is.
Completely agree, but there is a major sticking point: many of the Labour MP’s are new, and probably very malleable to the Labour whips to blindly follow the leadership so as to climb the slippery ladder. The only thing that might make them vote against the leadership (other than patriotism!) is the risk of losing their seats. So, with this whopping majority, they can block everything. However, I agree that this should not stop the opposition from trying, and working hard to unite all the parties against this malign government. Best wishes
Yes, they will block it, but at least it will shine a media spotlight on him. It will make it very uncomfortable for him to keep getting bad deals for the UK.
Unfortunately there is (I’m pretty sure, but not an expert) legislation in place for all government parties that they cannot pass laws that bind future governments, I agree Starmer is a menace and a traitor, but he currently also has a majority, so as much as we don’t like it, there is little we can do to stop him until next parliament in 2029 sadly
Hey,
Just going to jump in and point out that this is not law but constitutional theory, and it doesn’t relate to governments but Parliament. Generally, we say “Parliament cannot bind itself”; this is because Parliament, being sovereign, must be able to undo itself.
Now, under our current constitutional system, this generally means that you also cannot bind future governments, because the next government will have a majority, but this is not a given.
Now, there is a wrinkle in all of this. Treaty power is generally seen as part of the Royal Prerogative, and generally speaking, the courts cannot disapply an action that the Monarch has taken because they act in the King’s name and draw power from the King. The Supreme Court disregarded this rule during Brexit, something that many constitutional scholars on the right consider was a grave mistake, but if we correct this mistake, it would require Parliament to hold the King accountable and enforce any binding of the Royal Prerogative that it may seek to do.
I’ve tried to stay fairly surface-level with this, but I hope that it helps to understand the principles going on here.
You are absolutely right! That is our constitutional principle which is law now. No government can bind a future government. That is the already existing constitutional principle. And, it is already our existing Constitutional Law.
Therefore the good news is that e.g., a future Advance UK government can undo all the harms of the Uniparty Blair/Starmer policies including any treaties which affect and harm the British. A future Advance UK government can deliver Brexit and can take back our sovereignty over our fishing waters and — and can repeal or derogate from any other treaties which have detrimental effects against the UK’s interests. We just have to make sure we vote for a government that will do what’s right for the people and what’s right for the health and wealth of the UK’s national interests.
Agree, the whips system is an affront to democracy!
The whips system is a system where the MPs represent their party leader as a Parliamentary dictator rather than represent the interests of their constituents (whose interests they are supposed to be representing). Therefore, the current ‘whips’ system is an affront to democracy and needs to be reformed.
The Whips system must be curtailed so that an MP as a party member can only be ‘whipped’ into using its Parliamentary vote for policies which such party put in its election manifesto.
That is, can only be ‘whipped’ into voting for the policies which the constituent voters had voted for. That is, the constitutional democratic mandate which a MP has lawful authority to represent and speak for and use his/her Parliamentary vote as the representative of his/her constituents.
MPs should be compelled as a matter of law to represent the will of their constituents i.e., those who elected them and put them in Parliament. The public did not put their MP in Parliament to serve their own ‘career’ interests nor to use their Parliamentary vote as a puppet of their Party Leader.
The Whips system is the reason Starmer (and other governments) have been empowered to behave like dictators. That must change. Thus, if it’s not in the election manifesto then the MP has no mandate from his/her electorate to use his Parliamentary vote for whatever whims of his Party Leader. The MP must use his/her Parliamentary vote as the representative of what his/her constituents want — and not whatever secret policies his/her Party Leader wants to impose on the people but had chosen to conceal and not disclose in its election manifesto! .
We need to take a good look at the Whips system and reform it by legislation if necessary. We need to curtail the anti-democratic excesses of the ‘whips’ which in effect, give rise to what we now seem to have which is authoritarian dictatorship governments who disregard the interests of the people whom they rule over. That’s how we ended up with the injustices and oppression of this the current two-tier system. We need to return to a real and effective functioning democracy.
Incidentally, whilst on this topic even the Reform UK ‘Chief Whip’, whipped Rupert Lowe out of the party and thereby overruled the will of Mr. Lowe’s constituents. So even Reform UK have proved themselves abusers who are intoxicated with the power of the whip. Need to reform the Whip system.
